The Criminalization of Corruption in Latin America: Prosecutors and Voters During Lava Jato

Lava Jato, an unprecedented transnational bribery case that started in Brazil and spread throughout Latin America, paralyzed economies, upended elections, and collapsed governments. For some, it anticipates a new era of accountability. Others see the extraordinary prosecutorial zeal behind it as dangerously disruptive. What explains why the investigation gained momentum in some countries but stalled in others? The paper looks at the legacy of reforms that enhanced prosecutors’ structural capacity to combat white-collar crime. But Lava Jato only became a full-blown anti-corruption crusade where these reforms were coupled with investigators’ tactical decision to operate under the umbrella of a task force, thus catalysing legal innovation and aggressive fact-finding. This, however, reveals a paradox: while the adoption of steadfast and unorthodox prosecutorial strategies is critical for success, such an approach invites and legitimises backlash, rendering criminalization precarious and conflictive. Are investigators capable of securing public support for their cause, which they need to survive, or does their unusual zeal complicate the tacit consensus around the merits of anti-corruption? Do corruption prosecutions trigger system satisfaction and hope, conveying a message of possible political regeneration? Or do they signal further decay, exacerbating cynical and defeatist views about the nature and future of politics? Results show that the controversial tactics that propel crusades interact with voters’ political attitudes in ways that make it difficult for hope to take root across large portions of the electorate. Ultimately, the study is a reflection on the merits of accountability through criminalization.